Judge bars Trump from denying federal funds to ‘sanctuary’ cities that
limit immigration cooperation
[April 25, 2025]
By JANIE HAR
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge in California on Thursday barred
the Trump administration from denying or conditioning the use of federal
funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions, saying that portions of President
Donald Trump's executive orders were unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the injunction sought by San
Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities that limit
cooperation with federal immigration efforts.
Orrick wrote that defendants are prohibited “from directly or indirectly
taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds” and
the administration must provide written notice of his order to all
federal departments and agencies by Monday.
One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi
and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money
from sanctuary jurisdictions. The second order directs every federal
agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not
“abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens
from deportation.”
At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was
much too early for the judge to grant an injunction when the government
had not taken any action to withhold specific amounts or to lay out
conditions on specific grants.
But Orrick, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said this was
essentially what government lawyers argued during Trump’s first term
when the Republican issued a similar order.
“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in
2017,” Orrick wrote, citing the executive orders as well as directives
from Bondi, other federal agencies and Justice Department lawsuits filed
against Chicago and New York.
San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order and the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the
president exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order
threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities.”
Plaintiffs were pleased with the judge's order.
[to top of second column]
|
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Norwegian Prime
Minister Jonas Gahr Støre during a bilateral meeting in the Oval
Office of the White House, Thursday, April 24, 2025, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein))
“At a time when we continue to see tremendous federal overreach, the
Court’s ruling affirms that local governments can serve their
mission and maintain trust with the communities they care for," said
Tony LoPresti, counsel for Santa Clara County, in a statement.
It's unclear if federal agencies will abide by the order. On
Thursday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a reminder
to recipients of federal transportation funding that they are
expected to follow federal law, including on immigration
enforcement, or face potential consequences.
The department did not immediately respond to an email seeking
comment.
There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary
cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces immigration laws
nationwide but seeks state and local help in alerting federal
authorities of immigrants wanted for deportation and holding that
person until federal officers take custody.
Leaders of sanctuary jurisdictions say their communities are safer
because immigrants feel they can communicate with local police
without fear of deportation. It is also a way for municipalities to
focus their dollars on crime locally, they say.
Besides San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which includes a third
plaintiff, the city of San José, there are 13 other plaintiffs in
the lawsuit, which include Seattle and King County, Washington;
Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven,
Connecticut; and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
